Yeah, that was Audition 3, Kost. But the direction of the program has changed since then. But maybe if people like you or me start making music videos, the Audition developers will nudge the program in the direction of music production (cuz Audition's so video-oriented these days). That's my cunning plan, anyway. Think I'll get my teeth straightened to get ready for the video bits.

Yes, it's a function of music composition software, and Audition isn't that.

That's plainly ridiculous.

Tempo is one of the basic elements of any form of audio, not just music.

What if I'm working on a trailer and I want to sync SFX to the music track?

What if I want to sync VST fx to a tempo?

What if I want a loop to speed up whilst being synced to other loops?

Heck, what if I might actually want this feature to work on music inside Audition?

It's not just a music feature, it's a basic audio editing feature. And it's a pretty basic feature at that! Saying it's tempo changes arn't included because it's not "music composition software" is just...stupid.

We've been through this debate a lot in this forum. Audition is aimed primarily at sound editing, not music production. (Hey, don't get mad at me - it wasn't my decision.). Its music-making functionality is incredibly useful for people like me (and you, apparently) but secondary to the program's main thrust. Here's the deal with Audition: if tempo change function is so basic to audio editing that radio guys need it, then it *will* be added to the program. So, how many radio guys need tempo-change functionality in their work?

Tempo is one of the basic elements of any form of audio, not just music.

What if I'm working on a trailer and I want to sync SFX to the music track?

What if I want to sync VST fx to a tempo?

What if I want a loop to speed up whilst being synced to other loops?

Heck, what if I might actually want this feature to work on music inside Audition?

Tempo changes as such aren't included in Audition but there are very powerful speed change and stretch tools available for matching and syncing audio files. And you can still display the Time bar as Bars and Beats at any tempo or time signature that you choose.

That's really, really bizarre, and very bizarre reasoning. It's such a basic feature that could add a lot to Audition for the small amount of time it would take to implement. To refuse to implement tempo changes simply because "that's a music thing" seems really...really strange. Especially when CS6 is already boasting a Metronome track - what's the point of that then? Isn't that a "music thing" too?

Get used to it.

Woah...LOL. I was just asking buddy, I didn't know tempo changes could be such a touchy subject!

Audition is audio editing software. It isn't just used by radio people (who, if they are doing things like radio drama, use multitrack view extensively), but by TV and film users for things like ADR, and for editing and assembling live music production. It's also used extensively by people doing restoration work, and to a degree by the scientific community. It's also used to a surprising degree by mastering studios. None of these people, who constitute the vast majority of Audition users, need tempo changes. When it was first introduced, the concept behind the multitrack view was that of a software multitrack tape recorder, and that is pretty much what it remains.

Why the metronome track? Because it's useful sometimes for people recording live music - and that's the major distinction that you are failing to make in production terms - live versus compositional. Also, it was a common thing to do with a multitrack tape machine - record metronome tracks, which you could vary if you wanted to.

Just because a program has features that can help with the recording of of live music doesn't automatically make it music composition software; the processes and technology concerned are essentially different. There is absolutely no point in Audition competing in an area where it is immediately in competition with a load of established software, and potentially suffering in other markets because of this. So when I said 'composition software', that is exactly and precisely what I meant - I'm fully aware of all the other things you can do with it, and why.

I don't talk 'hogwash', and there is nothing 'bizarre' about this either - it's really very straightforward:

If your primary concern is music composition using MIDI, etc then I would suggest that Audition is not the tool you should be using for that purpose. There are better, cheaper options if you want to save money, like Reaper. But Reaper, as an editor, is crap. Each program plays to its strengths, not its weaknesses.

You're right, Audition CS 5.5 as a music production tool is crap, it doesn't have midi, doesn't do scoring, doesn't have a step sequencer, doesn't have any VST instruments, doesn't burn cd's, any wonder why I bought Sonar X1 Essentials ??

Hog wash...if Auditition isn't music production software why even bother having a multi-track section, maybe they should get rid of that too to please the editing only radio guys ??

Any sound designer uses multitrack editors. You layer and manipulate individual components to create sound effects, then layer them again to create the final composition. Audition is a multi-track sound editor, and while those can be used to create music, there are applications out there that do that much more comprehensively than Audition does.

Personally, I'd be disappointed (and somewhat perplexed) if Adobe went down the "everything but the kitchen sink" route with Audition, and started spending time and money to re-invent the wheel. I'd rather they stay focused on creating the "Photoshop for sound" the marketspace still lacks after all these years.

If your primary concern is music composition using MIDI, etc then I would suggest that Audition is not the tool you should be using for that purpose.

I use Audition 3 for music but CS5.5 for editing. It's twice faster than Au3. Introducing CS5.5 Durin said: "Nothing has been officially deleted from the Audition feature list, but there is a lot that was in Audition 3.01 that has not been updated and ported to the new codebase." Is it deleted now?

Dynamic Tempo Mapping is a feature that is in our feature database backlog, and has been for a long time. We prioritize it along with everything else during each development cycle and so far it has failed to make it above the cut line. This isn't because Adobe hates musicians or that video takes priority over everything else, nor does the team have some set criteria to weigh feature priority. It usually comes down to demand and dependencies.

Demand comes from this forum, absolutely, but also via email, customer visits, large license-holder requests, other teams and Suites at Adobe, management, industry trends, and our own intuition. Dependencies, prerequisite features needed before implementing another, are also a critical factor in how a feature is prioritized.

As an immediate example, our Player - the component of Audition that handles the summing, mixing, and output of audio to devices, treats time and velocity of the playhead as static. We can change the way the ticks on the the ruler are aligned, but a sample of audio is a sample of audio and plays back at 1/n the sample rate of the session. To support a dynamic tempo map for playback, our player would either need to adjust the speed of the playead across the timeline but keeping the session UI linear, or maintaining the current playback speed but warping the displayed content so that two identical clips might represent completely different durations. Now, there may be a more clever, simple way of addressing for the clip-based workflow, but demand has not been high enough to devote time to researching this. It also doesn't really make sense as a playback mode without a MIDI sequencer implementation to take advantage of it,

However, if what you're asking for is Dynamic Metronome to help with changes while recording, that's another matter. I could certainly see incorporating keyframe parameter adjustment to the Metronome track to trigger changes to click track tempo and time signature. Right now, it's a session-level property set. In the meantime, one could set the metronome for their initial settings, make a time selection of 4 bars, and bounce the master to a new track. Mute this, change your tempo, and repeat. Loop enable these clips and you'll have a set of metronome "clips" you can drag around as needed to accomodate your changes. (Be sure to mute or disable the original metronome track after you've made your changes or things are going to get very syncopated, very quickly.)

Maybe they should eliminate the record enable feature too. After all it's only an editing program now, not for music production.

Sounds to me somebody is just making excuses.

No excuses - just reasons, which Durin has explained further - and also the reason that it really wouldn't be that simple to implement. If Audition didn't record, it really wouldn't bother me that much - of necessity I use dedicated hardware for this.

_durin_ wrote:

However, if what you're asking for is Dynamic Metronome to help with changes while recording, that's another matter. I could certainly see incorporating keyframe parameter adjustment to the Metronome track to trigger changes to click track tempo and time signature. Right now, it's a session-level property set. In the meantime, one could set the metronome for their initial settings, make a time selection of 4 bars, and bounce the master to a new track. Mute this, change your tempo, and repeat. Loop enable these clips and you'll have a set of metronome "clips" you can drag around as needed to accomodate your changes. (Be sure to mute or disable the original metronome track after you've made your changes or things are going to get very syncopated, very quickly.)

That makes a lot more sense - a souped-up version of what you might be able to do with a metronome on a multitrack recorder anyway.

Point being Audition IS music production software, not just editing software. Midi would only enhance it's capabilities, not detract from it. Apparently Steve you've never worked with midi and do not know how powerful of a tool it can be. With the gorgeous sound sample programs that are available today, midi can be an extremely valuable tool for anyone who is into music production, including radio editors. To turn your back on midi is a big mistake, it should be look at as a goal to achieve. Personally I don't care what you do, I'm covered with Sonar X1 Essentials. To say Audition isn't a music production program is complete BS.

And yes I have worked with Audition as a muti-track recorder. It works just fine. I have no reason to post endless posts about it, because it does work well for me. I haven't had any problems with it, so why post hundreds of posts ??

Point being Audition IS music production software, not just editing software. Midi would only enhance it's capabilities, not detract from it. Apparently Steve you've never worked with midi and do not know how powerful of a tool it can be. With the gorgeous sound sample programs that are available today, midi can be an extremely valuable tool for anyone who is into music production, including radio editors. To turn your back on midi is a big mistake, it should be look at as a goal to achieve. Personally I don't care what you do, I'm covered with Sonar X1 Essentials. To say Audition isn't a music production program is complete BS.

'Apparently' you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Your example proves what has always been the case with MIDI, all the time I've been using it - for best part of the last 20 years. It has no soul. It's not a valuable tool for anything. For a start, it's really old technology, and it's damned for ever to run really slowly, even more so if you try to impart any degree of expression into what you're doing with it. And that's the reason that McGuinn doesn't use it - because he's a musician, not a MIDI manqué. You can just about play one instrument via a keyboard with it - any more and the latency kicks in big time.

The only music I've ever heard that was created by electronic means that had any soul at all was all played manually (on a variety of synths, etc) into a multitrack recorder a track at a time - for instance, go check out 'Switched On Bach' and weep. Just listen to the last movement of Brandenburg 3 ('68 version) - absolutely not possible to perform it like that using MIDI, and never will be because of its severe limitations.

Audition isn't a music creation program - which is what I actually said. If you're going to quote things, try to get them right please.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. With midi you can play with all the "soul" you want as it records your playing on a keyboard. It's not just a bunch of notes enetered into a computer. You obviously don't know much about latency either.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. With midi you can play with all the "soul" you want as it records your playing on a keyboard. It's not just a bunch of notes enetered into a computer. You obviously don't know much about latency either.

Gotta go, I've got things to do.

It's not often you're right - but this time, you're you're just plain wrong. Latency errors arise simply because it's a serial protocol, and you can't make two notes start at exactly the same time, whatever you do. And these errors get absolutely appalling when it comes to drums. I suggest that you read this SOS article, and bear in mind that the author is attempting to put a good spin on it - in reality for a lot of people, it's worse than he claims.

Whether you like it, or are prepared to admit it, or not, I've probably forgotten more about this than you appear to know...

Actually, MIDI is bit of an ambiguous term in this case. It's both the hardware protocol (SteveG's criticism of which is entirely valid) but it's also shorthand for the all-software solution of feeding notes to VST Instruments, where virtually none of the hardware-inherent restrictions (such as latency and polyphony) are applicable. I assume this is what djwayne is talking about.

Anyway, I still think this feature set is a Pandora's box best left unopened. Feature creep is an ugly thing to watch.

Sorry Steve, but you're dead wrong. Goto East West's Sounds Online website and lisen to some of the demo's that are scored with thier sound sample programs using a midi host. They are producing movie soundtracks with this stuff !! Latency is a problem that's been solved many years ago. Do you think sound sample companies could survive if midi didn't work right ?? Hardly. Try listening to some of Ivory's II piano sample programs sometime, they sound fabulous but require a midi host program to operate. Why do you think the most poular music production programs (Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar, Logic, Reaper) host midi ?? Because it works and is a fabulous tool in the right hands. In the wrong hands it's a disaster. Obviously you don't have any midi production skills, or else you wouldn't be making such outlandish statements.

By the way, that Beethoven's 5th example I gave you was done using and old Sonar's Home Studio program. I think I paid $99 for it.

If Adobe wants to compete with the big boys, they've got a lot of catching up to do.

No I'm not - Teetow1 has expressed it quite well. And it's one of the reasons that (elsewhere) I expressed the view that having Rewire back might be the way to go. MIDI as a hardware protocol is a disaster area - always has been. Do I know what it costs to hire an orchestra? Yes I do - I record them sometimes, and I have a pretty good idea of how much they cost, and also, compared to any of the libraries available, how much better most of them are. And the concept of 'MIDI production skills' I find laughable - that's about as close to a musical non-sequitur as you can get!

Sorry Steve, but you have thousands of Sonar users who will disagree with you. We all think midi is a great tool to have in our audio toolbox. Now that I know what I can do with midi, I won't give it up. Just my Ivory II program is worth thousands to me. How else could I get a fantastic piano sound short of going out and buying a Steinway, micing it up and having a room for it ?? Midi allows me to do that. How else could I fit a whole orchestra into my home studio ?? I'm telling ya, there's guys out there that are scoring complete movie soundtracks with midi, and you'll never know the difference. Those big choirs that you hear, do you really think they are real ?? They are mostly sound samples of choirs played with midi.

You'll get a lot more "soul" and realistic playing out of midi than you will using Loopology, yet you still put midi down. What a fool you are.